1. Title, director and release year?
Homotoxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
How do we define "the road to progress?" The film argues we live in an environment increasingly saturated in chemical toxicity. This toxicity exists and thrives all in the name of progress. The EPA estimates the average American interacts with 100,000 chemicals per day, a number shockingly large yet regretfully a very conservative (inaccurate) estimate.
The film includes case studies on communities throughout Canada living in high toxcification. Experienced consequences include childhood ADD and hearing disorders, low sperm counts in men and decreasing male populations. Beyond those, more extreme cases Poliquin also connects the high chemical pollution issues to "everyday" Americans and Canadians. The film documents her own personal exploration as she receives a blood toxin analysis discovering over 110 toxins in her blood. If a Canadian, highly aware and environmental activist harbors over 110 chemicals in her blood I'm frightened to discover the toxin levels of the averagely unaware and loosely regulated American blood stream.
Along with the questioning "progress", the film also questions our newfound definition of "normal". Our modern day chemical invasion is normal. Poliquin is advised not to worry, the chemicals in her body are "normal toxins" at "normal levels". When it becomes normal for mother's to die of breast cancer, fathers unable to reproduce, and 4th grades wearing hearing aids perhaps our definition of normal chemical levels will change.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
A primary sustainability problem drawn from the film is research. Through political, organizational, and educational realms toxic chemical research allows the further progress of chemical industries and cripples progress of human health. (progress??)
Research organizations (FDA, EPA) exist to protect humans from products or substances potentially harmful to humans that corporations may of lost sight of in the search for profit. Research organizations are safety nets that double check just to be sure anything a consumer is permitted to buy from a corporation can't kill or harm them. After all, corporations exist to progress our standards of living, right? Sounds like an organizationally sound system.
Research organizations are puppeteer ed by none-other than the chemical industries (not humans) they work to protect. These organizations are not safety nets but deceptive nets that encourage the mentality that if it's made it to the grocery shelf than it can't kill me. Case and point an interviewee from the film draws out is the (de)regulation of bisphenol A or BPA. BPA particulate matter is regulated in Canada at .23 ppt while it has found to be harmful at 50 ppb. He continues to point out that the 12 industry studies conducted on BPA have all found no health problems related to the chemical. This example illustrates the political contaminates in the researching organization which pollute and alter research results, masking potential health issues.
Through this system, everyday consumers and parents are educated of which chemicals and substances are okay to consume and at what levels. Even the most aware parents who trust in these research governments and follow their findings are still mislead to believe what is healthy.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
By far, the most compelling scene in the film was the presentation of the sticker dot diagrams from the highly polluted Canadian population. This community is adversely affected by the pollution of the nearby Suncorp corporation experiencing twice as many female children, childhood asthma, low male sperm counts, hermaphrodite fish populations, and many cancer cases. This woman and a friend, created visual diagrams of male and female children and adults with a dot representing a chemically induced disease or mishap. The charts are drastic. Most particularly the image of the female adult, drawn not large enough to hold all the dots within the body's outline. It was striking to see.
Besides the shock factor, it was interesting and heartbreaking to hear of the years of care and research these women conducted on their own community. They conducted the painful research on the conditions of their husband, children, and neighbors because they knew no one else would. This example of lay participation in research is compelling and effective. Effective in the sense that these two "normal" women were able to research and draft together a more compelling and productive set of images than a multi billion dollar research facility of research "professionals."
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I found the attention to mice movement on PBDEs compelling yet not convincing. The data was irrelevant to the actual causes of the side effects these children exposed to PBDEs experience. I believe the increase in childhood ADD must be a combination of toxic exposures and media (toxic) exposures children are exposed to. Difficult, yet must more conclusive studies must include the magnitude and breath of exposures to better understand their synergies and combined effects. Testing known amounts on PBDE's on rats offers little to contribute to a more inclusive study.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film compelled me to look further into the research and regulation complications of our current toxic management system. Focusing on BPA, I looked up regulation actions within the past two years.
In October of 2008 Heath Canada placed BPA on the toxic substances list.
However the United States experienced a more convoluted path to regulation...
From wikipedia BPA... "August 2009 - The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, as part of an ongoing investigative series into BPA and its effects, revealed plans by the Society of the Plastics Industry to execute a major public relations blitz to promote BPA, including plans to attack and discredit those who report or comment negatively on the monomer and its effects
November 2009 - The Consumer Reports magazine published an analysis of BPA content in some canned foods and beverages, where in specific cases the content of a single can of food could exceed the current FDA Cumulative Exposure Daily Intake"
February 2010 - the EPA has delayed the regulation of BPA
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Independent researching organanizations - University of California at Berkeley student
movement to Precautionary Principle "toxins must be proven innocent" from Smart Regulation Approach of corporate driven risk management "all substances are innocent until proven guilty."
1. Title, director and release year?
Homotoxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
How do we define "the road to progress?" The film argues we live in an environment increasingly saturated in chemical toxicity. This toxicity exists and thrives all in the name of progress. The EPA estimates the average American interacts with 100,000 chemicals per day, a number shockingly large yet regretfully a very conservative (inaccurate) estimate.
The film includes case studies on communities throughout Canada living in high toxcification. Experienced consequences include childhood ADD and hearing disorders, low sperm counts in men and decreasing male populations. Beyond those, more extreme cases Poliquin also connects the high chemical pollution issues to "everyday" Americans and Canadians. The film documents her own personal exploration as she receives a blood toxin analysis discovering over 110 toxins in her blood. If a Canadian, highly aware and environmental activist harbors over 110 chemicals in her blood I'm frightened to discover the toxin levels of the averagely unaware and loosely regulated American blood stream.
Along with the questioning "progress", the film also questions our newfound definition of "normal". Our modern day chemical invasion is normal. Poliquin is advised not to worry, the chemicals in her body are "normal toxins" at "normal levels". When it becomes normal for mother's to die of breast cancer, fathers unable to reproduce, and 4th grades wearing hearing aids perhaps our definition of normal chemical levels will change.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
A primary sustainability problem drawn from the film is research.
Through political, organizational, and educational realms toxic chemical research allows the further progress of chemical industries and cripples progress of human health. (progress??)
Research organizations (FDA, EPA) exist to protect humans from products or substances potentially harmful to humans that corporations may of lost sight of in the search for profit. Research organizations are safety nets that double check just to be sure anything a consumer is permitted to buy from a corporation can't kill or harm them. After all, corporations exist to progress our standards of living, right? Sounds like an organizationally sound system.
Research organizations are puppeteer ed by none-other than the chemical industries (not humans) they work to protect. These organizations are not safety nets but deceptive nets that encourage the mentality that if it's made it to the grocery shelf than it can't kill me. Case and point an interviewee from the film draws out is the (de)regulation of bisphenol A or BPA. BPA particulate matter is regulated in Canada at .23 ppt while it has found to be harmful at 50 ppb. He continues to point out that the 12 industry studies conducted on BPA have all found no health problems related to the chemical. This example illustrates the political contaminates in the researching organization which pollute and alter research results, masking potential health issues.
Through this system, everyday consumers and parents are educated of which chemicals and substances are okay to consume and at what levels. Even the most aware parents who trust in these research governments and follow their findings are still mislead to believe what is healthy.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
By far, the most compelling scene in the film was the presentation of the sticker dot diagrams from the highly polluted Canadian population. This community is adversely affected by the pollution of the nearby Suncorp corporation experiencing twice as many female children, childhood asthma, low male sperm counts, hermaphrodite fish populations, and many cancer cases. This woman and a friend, created visual diagrams of male and female children and adults with a dot representing a chemically induced disease or mishap. The charts are drastic. Most particularly the image of the female adult, drawn not large enough to hold all the dots within the body's outline. It was striking to see.
Besides the shock factor, it was interesting and heartbreaking to hear of the years of care and research these women conducted on their own community. They conducted the painful research on the conditions of their husband, children, and neighbors because they knew no one else would. This example of lay participation in research is compelling and effective. Effective in the sense that these two "normal" women were able to research and draft together a more compelling and productive set of images than a multi billion dollar research facility of research "professionals."
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I found the attention to mice movement on PBDEs compelling yet not convincing. The data was irrelevant to the actual causes of the side effects these children exposed to PBDEs experience. I believe the increase in childhood ADD must be a combination of toxic exposures and media (toxic) exposures children are exposed to. Difficult, yet must more conclusive studies must include the magnitude and breath of exposures to better understand their synergies and combined effects. Testing known amounts on PBDE's on rats offers little to contribute to a more inclusive study.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film compelled me to look further into the research and regulation complications of our current toxic management system. Focusing on BPA, I looked up regulation actions within the past two years.
In October of 2008 Heath Canada placed BPA on the toxic substances list.
However the United States experienced a more convoluted path to regulation...
From wikipedia BPA...
"August 2009 - The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, as part of an ongoing investigative series into BPA and its effects, revealed plans by the Society of the Plastics Industry to execute a major public relations blitz to promote BPA, including plans to attack and discredit those who report or comment negatively on the monomer and its effects
November 2009 - The Consumer Reports magazine published an analysis of BPA content in some canned foods and beverages, where in specific cases the content of a single can of food could exceed the current FDA Cumulative Exposure Daily Intake"
February 2010 - the EPA has delayed the regulation of BPA
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Independent researching organanizations - University of California at Berkeley student
movement to Precautionary Principle "toxins must be proven innocent" from Smart Regulation Approach of corporate driven risk management "all substances are innocent until proven guilty."